Conservative MP brings abortion back into the spotlight

[madmax]

Here we go again.

Surprised no one else started a thread or if they did... my apologies and delete this one.

So... the Conservatives want to know "When Life begins"

I found this in the comments section..

-----------------------------

If it follows the pattern of the F35 purchase..

1. It will start with life beginning at 3 years.

2. After an election, that will get refined to birth.

3. After a few senators get appointed, it will be moved to when the baby kicks.

4. The auditor general will determine that your life actually started when your parents met.

5. We'll get stuck with a bill that included your parents' upbringing.

---------------------------------

[Michael Hardner]

There is already a thread on this - please look before you leap, thanks.

[madmax]

There is already a thread on this - please look before you leap, thanks.

Sure enough Michael.. I am still looking for it... can u link me, I assume its not in Federal Politics?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

I'm not really against this...

Canada has no abortion laws.

It's not that it is illegal.

It's not that it is legal.

It's just not legislated.

Many civilized nations won't give abortions when the baby could survive outside of the womb (24 weeks).

In Canada, you could abort the baby the day before it is born...

[Keepitsimple]

What is it about Canada that we can't even HAVE a discussion. As has been said - virtually every modern democratic country has legislated reasonable restrictions on abortion - but the important part is that they had the discussions - they had the debates - and they comprimised with legislation - and they are not running up and down the streets with Pro-Life and Right to Choose banners. Why is it that here in Canada, we're not allowed to have a discussion? Are we somehow smarter that the Swiss or the Swedes, Danes, French, Germans? Are they all wrong?

Edited April 27, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[Smallc]

What is it about Canada that we can't even HAVE a discussion.

We had the discussion. This was the result. Deal with it.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

We had the discussion. This was the result. Deal with it.

No. We didn't have the discussion.

That is the myth.

The myth that we have legislation and laws governing abortion at all, in any sense. We have laws governing almost everything else... but not it.

“Save for the provisions of the Criminal Code permitting abortion where the life or health of the woman is at risk, no right of abortion can be found in Canadian law, custom or tradition and the Charter, including s.7, does not create such a right.”

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/history/legal_abortion_canada.html

We have nothing. We have an anti-abortion law that was struck down and nothing ever replaced it because of the bogeyman of "womyn's rights" infringement.

If abortion is legal on all accounts with no limits, write it into law.

If there are ethical limits, write it into law.

Let's just have the discussion and think about this sensibly and rationally. Allow abortions, put ethical limits on when the abortion can take place (based purely on whether the fetus can live outside of the womb, +when the mother's health is in jeopardy) and write it into law to make it official.

90% of abortions in Canada are performed during the first 12 weeks of

pregnancy, and just over 9% of abortions take place between 12 and 20 weeks of gestation. A

mere 0.4% of abortions take place after 20 weeks of gestation. These are considered late term

abortions.

Doctors already follow those ethical limits for the most part, the majority of abortions fit any reasonable timeline in Canada. Late term abortions are mostly only done for health reasons.

Now if we are talking about fully banning abortions, that is just unreasonable.

Edited April 27, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[Smallc]

No. We didn't have the discussion.

Sorry, but we did:

"The right to liberty... guarantees a degree of personal autonomy over important decisions intimately affecting his or her private life. ... The decision whether or not to terminate a pregnancy is essentially a moral decision and in a free and democratic society, the conscience of the individual must be paramount to that of the state."

Morgentaler et al v. Her Majesty the Queen, 1988 1 SCR 30 at 37

In other words, it's none of your damned business...or mine.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Smallc

[Battletoads]

No. We didn't have the discussion.

That is the myth.

The myth that we have legislation and laws governing abortion at all, in any sense. We have laws governing almost everything else... but not it.

http://www.abortionincanada.ca/history/legal_abortion_canada.html

We have nothing. We have an anti-abortion law that was struck down and nothing ever replaced it because of the bogeyman of "womyn's rights" infringement.

If abortion is legal on all accounts with no limits, write it into law.

If there are ethical limits, write it into law.

Let's just have the discussion and think about this sensibly and rationally. Allow abortions, put ethical limits on when the abortion can take place (based purely on whether the fetus can live outside of the womb, +when the mother's health is in jeopardy) and write it into law to make it official.

Doctors already follow those ethical limits for the most part, the majority of abortions fit any reasonable timeline in Canada. Late term abortions are mostly only done for health reasons.

Now if we are talking about fully banning abortions, that is just unreasonable.

Seems kinda pointless to have another long divisive debate about banning a practice that already does not occur. Seems more like regulation for the sake of regulation.

Also obligatory "No Hidden Agenda"

[waldo]

What is it about Canada that we can't even HAVE a discussion. As has been said - virtually every modern democratic country has legislated reasonable restrictions on abortion - but the important part is that they had the discussions - they had the debates - and they comprimised with legislation - and they are not running up and down the streets with Pro-Life and Right to Choose banners. Why is it that here in Canada, we're not allowed to have a discussion? Are we somehow smarter that the Swiss or the Swedes, Danes, French, Germans? Are they all wrong?

ah yes, this is the same you from the last abortion discussion go-around here on MLW - where you presumed to lobby for morality legislation. I could play back the posts if you'd like.....

[bleeding heart]

What is it about Canada that we can't even HAVE a discussion. As has been said - virtually every modern democratic country has legislated reasonable restrictions on abortion - but the important part is that they had the discussions - they had the debates - and they comprimised with legislation - and they are not running up and down the streets with Pro-Life and Right to Choose banners. Why is it that here in Canada, we're not allowed to have a discussion? Are we somehow smarter that the Swiss or the Swedes, Danes, French, Germans? Are they all wrong?

We had the discussion under Trudeau. Then we had the discussion again in the famous Morgentaler decision. The the PC's made some attempts to strike this down. Then they lost at their attempt.

Is it that you don't feel we've had a "discussion" until the law comes down in a way with which you agree?

[Keepitsimple]

We had the discussion under Trudeau. Then we had the discussion again in the famous Morgentaler decision. The the PC's made some attempts to strike this down. Then they lost at their attempt.

Is it that you don't feel we've had a "discussion" until the law comes down in a way with which you agree?

Actually.....I'm OK with the way things are - it's odd to be the only country with no legislation but it seems to have worked for Canada so far. The difference though, is that other countries' debates have resulted in legislation that grudgingly respects both sides of this divisive issue - a woman has the right to choose within limits that give some respect to "life". Without that "official" comprimise, we'll probably always have this debate popping up because the population is split almost 50/50 on the need/desire for SOME legislation.

Edited April 27, 2012 by Keepitsimple

[madmax]

No. We didn't have the discussion.

Yes we did.. and all the angles where discusssed, debated and we are where we are.

None of the arguments today are new to me.

I did start as pro life and it was over a decade of debates that changed my opinion.

One thing I did learn... leave it to the women to decide.

Past girlfriends have expressed both sides and I respect their view.

The law does not hinder a woman who wants to bring her child to term.

The law protects a women reproductive rights.

[Michael Hardner]

Actually.....I'm OK with the way things are - it's odd to be the only country with no legislation but it seems to have worked for Canada so far.

There are other examples of this type of arrangement... let's call it "let sleeping dogs lie".

Canada's current arrangement with Quebec seems to be to have aspects of this.

[jacee]

One thing I did learn... leave it to the women to decide.

Smart man!

A man's right to decide about abortion extends only to the end of his penis.

We can't have men going around with leaky condoms etc. impregnating women and then forcing them to have the child.

And it seems to me that the people on here most often raising this issue - forcing it into any discussion they can - are men.

I think we should have a law that says no law can be passed by men about abortion. That'll keep it out of the House!

I'm comfortable the way it is - a matter between a woman, her conscience and her doctor. It seems to be working well. The only people opposed are those who (on this and other matters) assume a right to force their values on others.

If you don't believe in abortion, don't have one.

Personally I don't think parents should indoctrinate children into religions that maintain control of people's minds through guilt and fear of some mystical bogeyMAN whom the church represents (while they take your money). I think it's child abuse ... but the law says otherwise and I'll respect people's choices, though I hope religion gradually dies.

Interesting that the era of 'deregulation' of abortion is an era of decline in numbers of abortions, attributed to better birth control, better sex education and perhaps also to removal of the stigma of being a 'single mom'.

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/news/blog.html?b=news.nationalpost.com/2011/11/17/abortion-rate-on-the-decline-study-finds

In the US, however, the 'abstinence only' approach to sex education is associated with increasing rates of teen pregnancy and abortion:

Using the most recent national data (2005) from all U.S. states with information on sex education laws or policies (N = 48) we show that increasing emphasis on abstinence education is positively correlated with teenage pregnancy and birth rates. This trend remains significant after accounting for socioeconomic status teen educational attainment, ethnic composition of the teen population, and availability of Medicaid waivers for family planning services in each state. These data show clearly that abstinence-only education as a state policy is ineffective in preventing teenage pregnancy and may actually be contributing to the high teenage pregnancy rates in the U.S.

[g_bambino]

Many civilized nations won't give abortions when the baby could survive outside of the womb (24 weeks).

In Canada, you could abort the baby the day before it is born...

But, if the baby can survive outside the womb, then the "abortion" won't kill the baby.

[bleeding heart]

Actually.....I'm OK with the way things are - it's odd to be the only country with no legislation but it seems to have worked for Canada so far. The difference though, is that other countries' debates have resulted in legislation that grudgingly respects both sides of this divisive issue - a woman has the right to choose within limits that give some respect to "life". Without that "official" comprimise, we'll probably always have this debate popping up because the population is split almost 50/50 on the need/desire for SOME legislation.

I get what you mean. But it appears to me that the debates in other countries--with more restrictions on abortion--is at least as common as here, and at least equally divisive.

[cybercoma]

But, if the baby can survive outside the womb, then the "abortion" won't kill the baby.

Win!

[cybercoma]

Essentially, Woodworth claims that he's not re-opening the abortion debate right now. He wants parliament to define when personhoo before the law begins.

In my opinion, this is essentially meaningless. As Smallc pointed out, the SCC has already determined that abortion itself is a moral issue that can only be made between a woman, her doctors, and whatever faith she has. There can be no law that limits a woman's ability to choose for herself what to do with her body. If she does not want another human being growing inside her, there is not anything the courts or government can do about that.

Furthermore, the question of morality around abortion and a foetus being a "person" has been addressed by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Essentially, her argument is that abortion is not immoral, even if you consider the foetus a person. The mother is not murdering another a person, but refusing to use her body as an incubator to keep another person alive. Morally, a person cannot expect you to give up your body in order to keep them alive, as you have every right to make decisions over your own body yourself.

So, imo this entire discussion about legal personhood is a non-starter, even when it comes to abortion. Where there are competing rights, the foetus will never win out. An unborn person has no right to impose their will upon the body of another person.

Gordon O'Connor gave an incredible speech about this in the House yesterday. In fact, the NDP even gave him a standing ovation. I commend him for standing up for a woman's right to obtain medically safe abortions without being considered a criminal.

[huh]

But, if the baby can survive outside the womb, then the "abortion" won't kill the baby.

Ah, i dont think the fetus/baby is delivered in the usual sense before it is 'aborted', so maybe not.

It is impossible to talk about this in Canada, it is a watershed issue for the left, not so much for women, but the far left, I dont lose any sleep over it, but some basic restriction in law would seem to be reasonable, but the left is about as reasonable on this issue as the religious antiabortionists are, so in lieu of not meeting in the middle I would prefer that women have complete freedom to make the choice.

[Guest Derek L]

Essentially, Woodworth claims that he's not re-opening the abortion debate right now. He wants parliament to define when personhoo before the law begins.

In my opinion, this is essentially meaningless. As Smallc pointed out, the SCC has already determined that abortion itself is a moral issue that can only be made between a woman, her doctors, and whatever faith she has. There can be no law that limits a woman's ability to choose for herself what to do with her body. If she does not want another human being growing inside her, there is not anything the courts or government can do about that.

Furthermore, the question of morality around abortion and a foetus being a "person" has been addressed by Judith Jarvis Thomson. Essentially, her argument is that abortion is not immoral, even if you consider the foetus a person. The mother is not murdering another a person, but refusing to use her body as an incubator to keep another person alive. Morally, a person cannot expect you to give up your body in order to keep them alive, as you have every right to make decisions over your own body yourself.

So, imo this entire discussion about legal personhood is a non-starter, even when it comes to abortion. Where there are competing rights, the foetus will never win out. An unborn person has no right to impose their will upon the body of another person.

Gordon O'Connor gave an incredible speech about this in the House yesterday. In fact, the NDP even gave him a standing ovation. I commend him for standing up for a woman's right to obtain medically safe abortions without being considered a criminal.

And the Prime Minister’s response? He too will vote against the bill………In my view (Don’t like the idea of abortion, but Pro-Choice still), this is a clear demonstration on the Conservative Government’s part of allowing members to state/vote their conscience in public without party interference…….Can the same be said about the NDP?

Edited April 28, 2012 by Derek L

[waldo]

And the Prime Minister’s response? He too will vote against the bill………this is a clear demonstration on the Conservative Government’s part of allowing members to state/vote their conscience in public without party interference

are you saying the Harper Conservatives are... never... whipped?

this is classic Harper playing both sides of the wedge - throw a bone to the fundies, while presuming to distance himself personally.

[cybercoma]

Ah, i dont think the fetus/baby is delivered in the usual sense before it is 'aborted', so maybe not.

It is impossible to talk about this in Canada, it is a watershed issue for the left, not so much for women, but the far left

I guess Gordon O'Connor is far left.

[Argus]

In my opinion, this is essentially meaningless. As Smallc pointed out, the SCC has already determined that abortion itself is a moral issue that can only be made between a woman, her doctors, and whatever faith she has. There can be no law that limits a woman's ability to choose for herself what to do with her body.

That is NOT what the Supreme Court said. Not even close. In fact, Andrew Coyne had a good summation of the issue in his column today.

Citing Bertha Wilson: This did not require the Court to pronounce on when human life begins. Rather, following the example of the U.S. Supreme Court in Roe v Wade, she suggested the fetus be viewed as a “potential life,” whose interests acquire greater legal weight the more fully it has developed. This view, she wrote, “supports a permissive approach to abortion in the early stages of pregnancy and a restrictive approach in the later stages. In the early stages the woman’s autonomy would be absolute… Her reasons for having an abortion would, however, be the proper subject of inquiry at the later stages of her pregnancy when the state’s compelling interest in the protection of the foetus would justify it in prescribing conditions.” Just when such conditions could be imposed she left “to the informed judgment of the legislature.”

Andrew Coyne

Edited April 28, 2012 by Argus

[scribblet]

This issue is not going to go away, when this one dies eventually another one will come along. It's worth revisiting the court's decision way back when.. Maybe if there was legislation restricting abortion to say, 24 weeks as in the U.K. it would give something to the anti-choice crowd, while not affecting the great majority of abortions.

Justice Bertha Wilson found herself in agreement with the Crown, that “the situation respecting a woman’s right to control her own person becomes more complex when she becomes pregnant, and some statutory control may be appropriate.”

A woman had a constitutional right to terminate a pregnancy, she held, but like any other right it was not absolute. “I think s. 1 of the Charter authorizes reasonable limits to be put upon the woman’s right,” she wrote, “having regard to the fact of the developing foetus within her body. The question is: at what point in the pregnancy does the protection of the foetus become such a pressing and substantial concern as to outweigh the fundamental right of the woman to decide whether or not to carry the foetus to term?”